Feasibility of early closure of loop ileostomies: a pilot study

Early diverting stoma closure is feasible and safe: results from a before-and-after study on the implementation of an early closure protocol at a tertiary referral center

BACKGROUND

Evidence on early closure (EC) of defunctioning stoma (DS) after colorectal surgery shows a favorable effect when patients are carefully selected. Therefore, a clinical pathway adapted to the implementation of an EC strategy was developed in our center. The aim of this study was to carry out a comparative analysis of time until DS closure and DS-related morbidity before and after the implementation of an EC protocol (ECP).

METHODS

This study is a before-and-after comparative analysis. Patients were divided into two cohorts according to the observational period: patients from the period before the ECP implementation (January 2015-December 2019) [Period 1] and those from the period after that (January 2020-December 2022) [Period 2]. All consecutive patients subjected to elective DS closure within both periods were eligible. Early closure was defined as the reversal within 30 days from DS creation. Patients excluded from EC or those not closed within 30 days since primary surgery were analyzed as late closure (LC). Baseline characteristics and DS-related morbidity were recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 145 patients were analyzed. Median time with DS was shorter in patients after ECP implementation [42 (21-193) days versus 233 (137-382) days, p < 0.001]. This reduction in time to closure did not impact the DS closure morbidity and resulted in less DS morbidity (68.8% versus 49.2%, p = 0.017) and fewer stoma nurse visits (p = 0.029).

CONCLUSIONS

The ECP was able to significantly reduce intervals to restoration of bowel continuity in patients with DS, which in turn resulted in a direct impact on the reduction of DS morbidity without negatively affecting DS closure morbidity.

Patient and surgeon preferences for early ileostomy closure following restorative proctectomy for rectal cancer: why aren't we doing it?

BACKGROUND

Early ileostomy closure (EIC), ≤ 2 weeks from creation, is a relatively new practice. Multiple studies have demonstrated that this approach is safe, feasible, and cost-effective. Despite the demonstrated benefits, this is neither routine practice, nor has it been studied, in North America. This study aimed to assess patient and surgeon perspectives about EIC.

METHODS

A mixed-methods, cross-sectional study of patients and surgeons was performed. Rectal cancer survivors from a single institution who underwent restorative proctectomy with diverting loop ileostomy and subsequent closure within the last 5 years were contacted. North American surgeons with high rectal cancer volumes (> 20 cases/year) were included. Surveys (patients) and semi-structured interviews (surgeons) were conducted. Analysis employed descriptive statistics and thematic analysis, respectively.

RESULTS

Forty-eight patients were surveyed (mean age 65.1 ± 11.8 years; 54.2% male). Stoma closure occurred after a median of 7.7 months (IQR 4.8-10.9) and 50.0% (24) found it "difficult" or "very difficult" to live with their stoma. Patients considered improvement in quality of life and quicker return to normal function the most important advantages of EIC, whereas the idea of two operations in two weeks being too taxing on the body was deemed the biggest disadvantage. Most patients (35, 72.9%) would have opted for EIC. Surgeon interviews (15) revealed 4 overarching themes: (1) there are many benefits to EIC; (2) specific patient characteristics would make EIC an appropriate option; (3) many barriers to implementing EIC exist; and (4) many logistical hurdles need to be addressed for successful implementation. Most surgeons (12, 80.0%) would "definitely want to participate" in a North American randomized-controlled trial (RCT) on EIC for rectal cancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing EIC poses many logistical challenges. Both patients and surgeons are interested in further exploring EIC and believe it warrants a North American RCT to motivate a change in practice.

Can physiological stimulation prior to ileostomy closure reduce postoperative ileus? A prospective multicenter pilot study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to assess the impact of ileostomy closure following preoperative physiological stimulation (PPS) on postoperative ileus (POI) in patients with loop ileostomy after low anterior resection for rectal cancer.

METHODS

Patients who underwent ileostomy closure between January 2017 and February 2020 in two tertiary referral centers were prospectively included. PPS stimulation was compared to standard treatment. Stimulation was carried out daily during the 15 days prior to ileostomy closure by the patient's self-instillation of 200 ml of fecal contents from the ileostomy bag via the efferent loop, using a rectal catheter. Standard treatment (ST) consisted of observation. Outcomes measures were POI, morbidity, stimulation feasibility, and predictors to ileus.

RESULTS

A total of 58 patients were included [42 males and 16 females, median age 67 (43-85) years]. PPS was used in 24 patients, who completed the entire stimulation process, and ST in 34 patients. No differences in preoperative factors were found between the two groups. POI was significantly lower in the PPS group (4.2%) vs the ST group (32.4%); p < 0.01, OR: 0.05 (CI 95% 0.01-0.65). The PPS group had a shorter time to restoration of bowel function (1 day vs 3 days) p = 0.02 and a shorter time to tolerance of liquids (1 day vs 2 days), p = 0.04. Age (p = 0.01), open approach at index surgery, p = 0.03, adjuvant capecitabine (p = 0.01). and previous abdominal surgeries (p = 0.02) were associated with POI in the multivariate analysis. C-reactive-protein values on the 3rd (p = 0.02) and 5th (p < 0.01) postoperative day were also associated with POI.

CONCLUSIONS

PPS for patients who underwent ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer is feasible and might reduce POI.

Early versus delayed defunctioning ileostomy closure after low anterior resection for rectal cancer: a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of safety and functional outcomes

PURPOSE

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis (TSA) to answer whether early closure of defunctioning ileostomy may be suitable after low anterior resection.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched, up to October 2021, for RCTs comparing early closure (EC ≤ 30 days) and delayed closure (DC ≥ 60 days) of defunctioning ileostomy. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI was calculated for dichotomous variables and the mean difference (MD) with 95% CI for continuous variables. The GRADE methodology was implemented for assessing Quality of Evidence (QoE). TSA was implemented to address the risk of random error associated with sparse data and/or multiple testing.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs were included for quantitative synthesis. 599 patients were allocated to either EC (n = 306) or DC (n = 293). EC was associated with a higher rate of wound complications compared to DC (RR 2.56; 95% CI 1.33 to 4.93; P = 0.005; I² = 0%, QoE High), a lower incidence of postoperative small bowel obstruction (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.89; P = 0.02; I² = 0%, QoE moderate), and a lower rate of stoma-related complications (RR 0.26; 95% CI 0.16 to 0.42; P < 0.00001; I² = 0%, QoE moderate). The rate of minor low anterior resection syndrome (LARS) (RR 1.13; 95% CI 0.55 to 2.33; P = 0.74; I² = 0%, QoE low) and major LARS (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.59 to 1.09; P = 0.16; I² = 0%, QoE low) did not differ between the two groups. TSA demonstrated inconclusive evidence with insufficient sample sizes to detect the observed effects.

CONCLUSION

EC may confer some advantages compared with a DC. However, TSA advocated a cautious interpretation of the results.

PROSPERO REGISTER ID

CRD42021276557.

Closure of Temporary Ileostomy 2 Versus 12 Weeks After Rectal Resection for Cancer: A Word of Caution From a Prospective, Randomized Controlled Multicenter Trial

BACKGROUND

The optimum timing for temporary ileostomy closure after low anterior resection is still open.

OBJECTIVE

This trial aimed to compare early (2 wk) versus late (12 wk) stoma closure.

DESIGN

The study included 2 parallel groups in a multicenter, randomized controlled clinical trial.

SETTINGS

The study was conducted at 3 Swiss hospitals.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing low anterior resection and temporary ileostomy for cancer were included.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomly allocated to early or late stoma closure. Before closure, colonic anastomosis was examined for integrity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary efficacy outcome was the Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index 6 weeks after resection. Secondary end points included safety (morbidity), feasibility, and quality of life 4 months after low anterior resection.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped for safety concerns after 71 patients were randomly assigned to early closure (37 patients) or late closure (34 patients). There were comparable baseline data between the groups. No difference in quality of life occurred 6 weeks (mean Gastrointestinal Quality of Life Index: 99.8 vs 106.0; p = 0.139) and 4 months (108.6 vs 107.1; p = 0.904) after index surgery. Intraoperative tendency of oozing (visual analog scale: 35.8 vs 19.3; p = 0.011), adhesions (visual analog scale: 61.3 vs 46.2; p = 0.034), leak of colonic anastomosis (19% vs 0%; p = 0.012), leak of colonic or ileal anastomosis (24% vs 0%; p = 0.002), and reintervention (16% vs 0%; p = 0.026) were significantly higher after early closure. The concept of early closure failed in 10 patients (27% vs 0% in the late closure group (95% CI for the difference, 9.4%-44.4%)).

LIMITATIONS

The trial was prematurely stopped because of safety issues. The aimed group size was not reached.

CONCLUSIONS

Early stoma closure does not provide better quality of life up to 4 months after low anterior resection but is afflicted with significantly adverse feasibility and higher morbidity when compared with late closure. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B665.

CIERRE DE LA ILEOSTOMA TEMPORAL VERSUS SEMANAS POSTERIOR A LA RESECCIN RECTAL POR CNCER UNA ADVERTENCIA DE UN ESTUDIO MULTICNTRICO CONTROLADO RANDOMIZADO PROSPECTIVO

ANTECEDENTES:El momento óptimo para el cierre temporal de la ileostomía posterior a la resección anterior baja es aun controversial.OBJETIVO:Este estudio tuvo como objetivo comparar el cierre del estoma temprano (2 semanas) versus tardío (12 semanas).DISEÑO:Estudio clínico controlado, randomizado, multicéntrico, de dos grupos paralelos.ENTORNO CLINICO:El estudio se llevó a cabo en 3 hospitales suizos.PACIENTES:Se incluyeron pacientes sometidos a resección anterior baja e ileostomía temporal por cáncer.INTERVENCIONES:Los pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente al cierre del estoma temprano o tardío. Antes del cierre, se examinó la integridad de la anastomosis colónica.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE VALORACION:El principal resultado de eficacia fue el Índice de Calidad de Vida Gastrointestinal 6 semanas después de la resección. Los criterios secundarios incluyeron la seguridad (morbilidad), factibilidad y calidad de vida 4 meses posterior a la resección anterior baja.RESULTADOS:El estudio se detuvo por motivos de seguridad después de que 71 pacientes fueron asignados aleatoriamente a cierre temprano (37 pacientes) o cierre tardío (34 pacientes). Hubo datos de referencia comparables entre los grupos. No se produjeron diferencias en la calidad de vida 6 semanas (índice de calidad de vida gastrointestinal, media 99,8 vs. 106; p = 0,139) y 4 meses (108,6 vs 107,1, p = 0,904) después de la cirugía inicial. Tendencia intraoperatoria de supuración (escala analógica visual 35,8 vs 19,3, p = 0,011), adherencias (escala analógica visual 61,3 vs 46,2, p = 0,034), fuga de anastomosis colónica (19% vs 0%, p = 0,012), fuga de anastomosis colónica o ileal (24% vs 0%, p = 0,002) y reintervención (16% vs 0%, p = 0,026) fueron significativamente mayores después del cierre temprano. El concepto de cierre temprano fracasó en 10 pacientes (27% vs ninguno en el grupo de cierre tardío (intervalo de confianza del 95% para la diferencia: 9,4% a 44,4%)).LIMITACIONES:El estudio se detuvo prematuramente debido a problemas de seguridad. No se alcanzó el tamaño del grupo previsto.CONCLUSIÓN:El cierre temprano del estoma no proporciona una mejor calidad de vida hasta 4 meses posterior a una resección anterior baja, esto se ve afectado por efectos adversos significativos durante su realización y una mayor morbilidad en comparación con el cierre tardío. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B665.

Short-term Outcomes of Day-Case Stoma Closure: A Prospective, Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Elective stoma closure is a common, standardized procedure in digestive surgery.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility of day-case surgery for elective stoma closure.

DESIGN

This is a prospective, single-center, nonrandomized study of consecutive patients undergoing day-case elective stoma closure.

SETTING

This study was performed at a French tertiary hospital between January 2016 and June 2018.

PATIENTS

Elective stoma closure was performed by local incision with an ASA score of I, II, or stabilized III.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary end point was the day-case surgery success rate in the overall population (all patients having undergone elective stoma closure) and in the per protocol population (patients not fulfilling any of the preoperative or perioperative exclusion criteria). The secondary end points (in the per protocol population) were the overall morbidity rate (according to the Clavien-Dindo classification), the major morbidity rate (Clavien score ≥3), and day-case surgery quality criteria (unplanned consultation, unplanned hospitalization, and unplanned reoperation).

RESULTS

Between January 2016 and June 2018, 236 patients (the overall population; mean ± SD age: 54 ± 17; 120 men (51%)) underwent elective stoma closure. Fifty of these patients (21%) met all the inclusion criteria and constituted the per protocol population. The day-case surgery success rate was 17% (40 of 236 patients) in the overall population and 80% (40 of 50 patients) in the per protocol population. In the per protocol population, the overall morbidity rate was 30% and the major morbidity rate was 6%. Of the 40 patients with successful day-case surgery, the unplanned consultation rate and the unplanned hospitalization rate were both 32.5%. There were no unplanned reoperations.

LIMITATIONS

This was a single-center study.

CONCLUSION

In selected patients, day-case surgery for elective stoma closure is feasible and has acceptable complication and readmission rates. Day-case elective stoma closure can therefore be legitimately offered to selected patients. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/B583.

RESULTADOS A CORTO PLAZO DEL CIERRE DE ESTOMA AMBULATORIO UN ESTUDIO OBSERVACIONAL Y PROSPECTIVO

ANTECEDENTES:El cierre electivo de un estoma es un procedimiento común y estandarizado en cirugía digestiva.OBJETIVO:Evaluar la viabilidad de la cirugía ambulatoria para el cierre electivo de estomas.DISEÑO:Un estudio prospectivo, unicéntrico, no aleatorizado de pacientes consecutivos sometidos a cierre de estoma electivo ambulatorio.ESCENARIO:Un hospital terciario francés entre enero de 2016 y junio de 2018.PACIENTES:Cierre electivo de estoma realizado por incisión local con una puntuación de la American Society of Anesthesiologists de I, II o III estabilizado.PRINCIPALES MEDIDAS DE RESULTADO:El resultado principal fue la tasa de éxito de la cirugía ambulatoria en la población general (todos los pacientes habiendo sido sometidos a cierre de estoma electivo) y en la población por protocolo (pacientes que no cumplían con ninguno de los criterios de exclusión preoperatorios o perioperatorios). Los resultados secundarios (en la población por protocolo) fueron la tasa de morbilidad general (según la clasificación de Clavien-Dindo), la tasa de morbilidad mayor (puntuación de Clavien ≥ 3) y los criterios de calidad de la cirugía ambulatoria (consulta no planificada, hospitalización no planificada y reoperación no planificada).RESULTADOS:Entre enero de 2016 y junio de 2018, 236 pacientes (la población general; edad media ± desviación estándar: 54 ± 17; 120 hombres (51%)) se sometieron al cierre electivo del estoma. Cincuenta de estos pacientes (21%) cumplieron todos los criterios de inclusión y constituyeron la población por protocolo. La tasa de éxito de la cirugía ambulatoria fue del 17% (40 de 236 pacientes) en la población general y del 80% (40 de 50 pacientes) en la población por protocolo. En la población por protocolo, la tasa de morbilidad general fue del 30% y la tasa de morbilidad mayor fue del 6%. De los 40 pacientes con cirugía ambulatoria exitosa, la tasa de consultas no planificadas y la tasa de hospitalización no planificada fueron ambas del 32.5%. No hubo reoperaciones no planificadas.LIMITACIONES:Este fue un estudio de un solo centro.CONCLUSIÓN:En pacientes seleccionados, la cirugía ambulatoria para el cierre electivo de estoma es factible y tiene tasas aceptables de complicaciones y reingreso. Por lo tanto, se puede ofrecer legítimamente el cierre electivo ambulatorio de estoma a pacientes seleccionados. Consulte Video Resumen en http://links.lww.com/DCR/B583.

Effects of anchoring sutures at diverting ileostomy after rectal cancer surgery on peritoneal adhesion at following ileostomy reversal

Purpose

During diverting ileostomy reversal for rectal cancer patients who underwent previous sphincter-saving surgery, the extent of adhesion formation around the ileostomy site affects operative and postoperative outcomes. Anchoring sutures placed at the time of the ileostomy procedure may reduce adhesions around the ileostomy. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of anchoring sutures on the degree of adhesion formation and the postoperative course at the time of ileostomy reversal.

Methods

Patients who underwent sphincter-saving surgery with diverting ileostomy for rectal cancer between January 2013 and December 2017 were enrolled. Variables including the peritoneal dhesion index (PAI) score, operation time, the length of resected small bowel, operative complications, and postoperative hospital stay were collected prospectively and compared between the anchoring group (AG) and non-anchoring group (NAG).

Results

A total of 90 patients were included in this study, with 60 and 30 patients in the AG and NAG, respectively. The AG had shorter mean operation time (46.88 ± 16.37 minutes vs. 61.53 ± 19.36 minutes, P = 0.001) and lower mean PAI score (3.02 ± 2.53 vs. 5.80 ± 2.60, P = 0.001), compared with the NAG. There was no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative complications between the AG and NAG (5.0% vs. 13.3%, respectively; P = 0.240).

Conclusion

Anchoring sutures at the formation of a diverting ileostomy could decrease the adhesion score and operation time at ileostomy reversal, thus may be effective in improving perioperative outcomes.

C-reactive protein can predict anastomotic leak in colorectal surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage (AL) is one of the most significant complications after colorectal surgery, affecting length of stay, patient morbidity, mortality, and long-term oncological outcome. Serum C-reactive protein (CRP) level rises in infective and inflammatory states. Elevated CRP has been shown to be associated with anastomotic leak.

OBJECTIVE

Perform a meta-analysis of current CRP data in AL after colorectal surgery.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL databases STUDY SELECTION: Comparative studies studying serum CRP levels in adult patients with and without AL after colorectal surgery.

INTERVENTION(S)

Elective and emergency open, laparoscopic or robotic colorectal excisions for cancer and benign pathology.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Mean serum CRP measurements between post-operative days (POD) 1 through 7 in patients with and without AL. Perform ROC analysis to determine cut-off CRP values to indicate AL.

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies with 6647 patients (482 AL). Pooled mean time to diagnosis of AL was 7.70 days. AL associated with higher CRP on POD1 (mean difference (MD) 15.19, 95% CI 5.88-24.50, p = 0.001), POD2 (MD 51.98, 05% CI 37.36-66.60, p < 0.00001), POD3 (MD 96.92, 95% CI 67.96-125.89, p < 0.00001), POD4 (MD 93.15, 95% CI 69.47-116.84, p < 0.00001), POD5 (MD 112.10, 95% CI 89.74-134.45, p < 0.00001), POD6 (MD 98.38, 95% CI 80.29-116.46, p < 0.00001), and POD7 (MD 106.41, 95% CI 75.48-137.35, p < 0.00001) compared with no AL. ROC analysis identified a cut-off CRP of 148 mg/l on POD3 with sensitivity and specificity of 95%. On POD4 through POD7, cut-off levels were 123 mg/l, 115 mg/l, 105 mg/l, and 96 mg/l, respectively, with sensitivity and specificity of 100%.

LIMITATIONS

Study heterogeneity, some characteristics unreported, no RCT CONCLUSIONS: AL is associated with higher CRP levels on each post-operative day compared to no AL after colorectal surgery. The cut-off CRP values can be used to predict AL to expedite investigation and treatment.

Safety of early ileostomy closure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

Patients with a defunctioning ileostomy after rectal resection experience substantial ileostomy-related morbidity and decreased quality of life. Early reversal of the defunctioning ileostomy has been proposed as a method of mitigating these problems. We aimed to evaluate the safety of early ileostomy closure within 6 weeks.

METHOD

Randomized controlled trials investigating the safety of early ileostomy closure were identified through a systematic search and review of the current literature. Meta-analysis of the extracted outcome data was performed, and the methodological quality of the individual studies was assessed.

RESULTS

The search identified six eligible studies yielding a total of 528 patients, with 269 in the early closure (EC) group and 259 in the standard closure (SC) group. Major complications in the EC group was 5.2% compared with 3.6% in the SC group (RR = 1.12, 95% CI 0.33-3.79). Anastomotic leakage in the EC group was 3.3% compared with 3.5% in the SC group (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.29-2.75). The meta-analysis resulted in no statistically significant differences between the groups in any of the primary or secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This review was not able to discern a statistically significant difference in postoperative complications when comparing early and standard ileostomy closure. The current literature indicates that early ileostomy closure is not associated with higher complication rates in patients with an uncomplicated postoperative course and radiologically verified intact distal anastomosis after index surgery.

A Systematic Review of Early versus Late Closure of Loop Ileostomy

Introduction

A Loop ileostomy is one of the most common techniques used in colorectal surgery to establish a reversible faecal diversion and bypass the large bowels, in order to protect either a downstream colorectal anastomosis or a coloanal anastomosis. However, it is a procedure that can cause a plethora of complications including long term ones such as the psychological effects. Currently, there is no consensus regarding the optimal time to perform closure of a loop ileostomy. Some studies suggested the early reversal of ileostomy procedure as a solution to reduce these complications. This study aims to review the available literature in order to ascertain the benefits behind early closure of loop ileostomy.

Methods

The literature was searched for all studies that included a comparison between the outcomes of early and late closure of loop ileostomy in terms of morbidity, mortality, or quality of life, where available. Early closure of loop ileostomy is defined as closure less than three months and late as more than three months, in accordance with conventional literature. The resultant articles were filtered using our inclusion and exclusion criteria. Finally, the remaining articles were assessed for quality and their results were compared to one another in order to draw our conclusions. Results and Discussion. The results were slightly inclined toward early closure of loop ileostomy. However, there were limitations of the studies reviewed, including the heterogenicity of studies, selection bias, lack of clear definition of measured outcomes, and small sample size. Taking that into consideration, the results of early closure of loop ileostomies in the selected patients were promising and require further investigation.

The feasibility and safety of early ileostomy reversal: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent evidence supports the safety of early reversal of a temporary stoma, within 14 days of construction. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the post-operative morbidity and overall feasibility of early stoma reversal.

METHODS

Medline and Cochrane databases were searched for studies up to June 2019 that investigated the outcomes of early stoma reversal (EC, defined as closure ≤14 days from the index operation) versus late stoma reversal (LC, ≥8 weeks from the index operation). Meta-analysis was performed on the respective rates of post-operative morbidity, anastomotic leak, wound infection, bleeding, sepsis, small bowel obstruction and ileus.

RESULTS

Nine studies were included (667 patients analysed). Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the post-operative morbidity rate, anastomotic leak rate, rates of small bowel obstruction, bleeding and ileus between EC and LC. However, the wound infection rate was significantly higher after EC than LC; relative difference 0.10 (95% confidence interval 0.00-0.19, P = 0.047). The stoma-related complication rate was significantly higher after LC than EC; relative difference -0.28 (95% confidence interval -0.45 to -0.11, P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The concept of early stoma reversal is appealing, and this meta-analysis confirms the safety of early stoma closure with an associated reduction in stoma-related complications despite higher wound infection rates. However, the results need to be interpreted with caution due to the heterogeneity of the studies included, especially in respect of the definition of complications that were used. Further well-designed prospective studies are required prior to confident adoption of early stoma closure into clinical practice.

Early Versus Routine Stoma Closure in Patients With Colorectal Resection: A Meta-Analysis of 7 Randomized Controlled Trials

Background. A substantial proportion of patients undergoing colorectal surgery receive a temporary stoma, and the timing for stoma closure remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early stoma closure (ESC) compared with routine stoma closure (RSC) after colorectal surgery. Methods. We comprehensively searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials that compared ESC and RSC after colorectal surgery. Results. A total of 7 randomized controlled trials with 814 enrolled patients were identified for this meta-analysis. There were no significant differences between the ESC and RSC groups regarding the complications of stoma closure (26.8% and 16.6%, respectively; odds ratio [OR]: 1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-1.90; P = .17). A subgroup analysis was conducted by Clavien-Dindo grade of complication, and no significant difference was observed in any subgroup ( P > .05). However, the ESC group had a significantly higher risk of wound complications than the RSC group (17.6% and 7.8%, respectively; OR: 2.61; 95% CI: 1.43-4.76; P = .002), and the RSC group had more cases of small bowel obstruction than the ESC group (3.1% and 8.4%, respectively; OR: 0.37; 95% CI: 0.15-0.87; P = .02). Conclusions. ESC is a safe and effective therapeutic approach in patients who have undergone colorectal surgery; it is associated with a reduced risk of bowel obstruction but a higher risk of wound complications.

The Safety of Outpatient Stoma Closure: on the Verge of a Paradigm Shift?

BACKGROUND

An area of contention among colorectal surgeons is when it is safe to discharge patients who have undergone closure of diverting ostomies. This study aimed to review the trends in outpatient stoma closure (OSC), to assess the safety of this practice, and to identify appropriate surgical candidates for the outpatient procedure.

METHODS

Patients were queried from the ACS National Surgical Quality Improvement Program database (2005-2016). Main outcomes included Clavien-Dindo (C-D) III-V class surgical complications, and readmission. Outpatient stay was defined as a hospital stay of less than or equal to 1 day. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for C-D III-V complications and readmission.

RESULTS

Of 24,393 patients, 668 (2.74%) underwent an OSC. OSC has increased over the last decade (3.16% 2005-2006, 4.14% 2016, p < 0.001). Outpatients had significantly lower ASA class and fewer comorbidities than inpatients. Outpatient complication rate was significantly lower than the inpatient rate (2.99% vs. 7.25%, p < 0.001). Readmissions were comparable (8.92% outpatient vs. 9.77% inpatient, p = 0.54). ASA > 2, smoking, COPD, dyspnea, steroid use, bleeding disorder, and partial/total dependency were associated with increased risk of complications and readmission. Patients without any risk factors had lower complication (4.75%) and readmission rates (8.09%) compared to those with ≥ 2 risk factors (11.50% complication and 13.07% readmission rate, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

There is an increasing trend in the percentage of stoma closures being performed as outpatient procedures. Appropriate selection of patients preoperatively who are suitable candidates for OSC can be helpful in managing patient expectations and hospital resources.

Clinical Outcomes of Ileostomy Closure According to Timing During Adjuvant Chemotherapy After Rectal Cancer Surgery

PURPOSE

No guidelines exist detailing when to implement a temporary ileostomy closure in the setting of adjuvant chemotherapy following sphincter-saving surgery for rectal cancer. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and oncological outcomes of ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with curative resection of rectal cancer.

METHODS

This retrospective study investigated 220 patients with rectal cancer undergoing sphincter-saving surgery with protective loop ileostomy from January 2007 to August 2016. Patients were divided into 2 groups: group 1 (n = 161) who underwent stoma closure during adjuvant chemotherapy and group 2 (n = 59) who underwent stoma closure after adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

No significant differences were observed in operative time, blood loss, postoperative hospital stay, or postoperative complications in ileostomy closure between the 2 groups. No difference in overall survival (P = 0.959) or disease-free survival (P = 0.114) was observed between the 2 groups.

CONCLUSION

Ileostomy closure during adjuvant chemotherapy was clinically safe, and interruption of chemotherapy due to ileostomy closure did not change oncologic outcomes.

Cases of low anterior resection and ileostomy for rectal cancer that required more than 18 months for stoma closure

Laparoscopic surgery is performed worldwide, even for cases of rectal cancer close to the anus, and advances in surgical instruments and techniques have increased the number of cases for which anastomosis can be performed, even those cases for which abdominoperineal resection was performed previously. Consequently, as a measure to avoid complications in the event of suture failure after surgery, the number of cases of establishing diverting stoma has also increased. Diverting ostomy may require a closure operation earlier than planned due to colostomy complications, cases requiring a long period of time until closure due to postoperative complications, and cases in which closure operation cannot be performed. Herein, we report cases that took more than 36 months to allow closure of the diverting stoma.

Early versus standard closure of temporary ileostomy in patients with rectal cancer: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

A significant proportion of patients undergoing rectal cancer surgery receive a temporary ileostomy because of its benefits in case of anastomotic dehiscence. However, the best timing for closure remains unclear.

METHODS

Early closure (EC; 30 days after creation) and standard closure (SC; 90 days after creation) of ileostomy were compared in a single-center randomized controlled trial conducted at National Cancer Institute (Vilnius, Lithuania). Patients with a temporary ileostomy who underwent rectal cancer surgery and did not have anastomotic leakage or other serious complications were randomized to early or standard ileostomy closure groups. Thirty days postoperative morbidity following ileostomy closure was the primary outcome of the study.

RESULTS

The trial was prematurely terminated due to the safety reason after 86 patients were randomized to EC (43 patients) and SC (43 patients) groups. The overall 30 days postoperative morbidity rate was dramatically higher in the EC group (27.9% vs 7.9%; P = 0.024). Moreover, severe complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) were present only after EC of ileostomy in five (11.6%) patients.

CONCULSION

Early closure of ileostomy at 30 days after radical rectal resection is not safe and should not be performed.

Prospective study on the safety and feasibility of early ileostomy closure 2 weeks after lower anterior resection for rectal cancer

Purpose

Transient loop ileostomies in rectal cancer surgery are generally closed after 2 or more months to allow adequate time for anastomotic healing. Maintaining the ileostomy may cause medical, surgical, or psychological complications; it also reduces the quality of life, and increase treatment costs. We performed this study to evaluate the safety and feasibility of early ileostomy closure 2 weeks postoperatively.

Methods

If a patient who underwent total mesorectal excision had 2 or more risk factors for anastomotic leakage, a loop ileostomy was created. After confirmation of intact anastomosis via sigmoidoscopy and proctography 1 week postoperatively, the patient was enrolled and ileostomy was closed 2 weeks postoperatively. The primary endpoint was the frequency of complication after ileostomy repair.

Results

Thirty patients were enrolled in the study and 6 were excluded due to anastomotic leakage. Except for 1 case of wound infection (4.2%), no patient experienced any complication including newly developed leakage after the ileostomy closure. The mean duration to repair was 13.1 days (range, 8–16 days) and mean duration to the start of adjuvant treatment after radical surgery was 5.37 weeks (range, 3.0–8.1 weeks).

Conclusion

Transient loop ileostomy, which is confirmed to be intact endoscopically and radiologically, can be safely closed 2 weeks postoperatively without requiring a significant delay in adjuvant chemotherapy.

Early ileostomy reversal after minimally invasive surgery and ERAS program for mid and low rectal cancer

Diverting loop ileostomy following low anterior resection (LAR) is known to decrease quality of life and prolongs the return back to patients' baseline activity. The aim of this retrospective study was to explore feasibility and safety of an early ileostomy reversal strategy in a cohort of patients undergoing minimally invasive LAR within an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) program. Prospectively collected data from 15 patients who underwent minimally invasive LAR and diverting ileostomy at the Division of General and Hepatobiliary Surgery, University of Verona Hospital Trust between September 2015 and December 2016 were retrospectively analyzed. Of 15 patients, 10 patients underwent laparoscopic LAR and 5 patients a robot-assisted procedure. Post-operative complications were observed in 5 patients. Four patients suffered Clavien-Dindo grade 1 or 2 complications, and one patient required redo surgery due to bowel obstruction at the ileostomy site (grade 3b). Following ileostomy reversal, 10 out of 15 patients experienced complications. Two patients required redo surgery for bowel obstruction (grade 3b), whilst eight patients suffered grade 1 or 2 complications, being surgical site infection the most frequently observed (6 cases). Despite that, 80% of patients had their ileostomy reversed within 30 days and median time from initial surgery to ileostomy reversal was 22 days (range 10-150). Early ileostomy closure after minimally invasive LAR and ERAS program is feasible although it carries non-negligible risk of severe complications which, however, does not hinder its accomplishment.

A Nomogram to Predict Anastomotic Leakage in Open Rectal Surgery-Hope or Hype?

BACKGROUND

Anastomotic leakage is the most dreaded complication after rectal resection and total mesorectal excision, leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Formation of a diverting ileostomy is generally performed to protect anastomotic healing. Identification of variables predicting anastomotic leakage might help to select patients who are under increased risk for the development of anastomotic leakage prior to surgery. The objective of this study was to assess the applicability of a nomogram as prognostic model for the occurrence of anastomotic leakage after rectal resection in a cohort of rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Nine hundred seventy-two consecutive patients who underwent surgery for rectal cancer were retrospectively analyzed. Univariate and multivariable Cox regression analyses were used to determine independent risk factors associated with anastomotic leakage. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis was performed to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, and overall model correctness of a recently published nomogram and an adopted risk score based on the variables identified in this study as a predictive model.

RESULTS

Male sex (p = 0.042), obesity (p = 0.017), smoking (p = 0.012), postoperative bleeding (p = 0.024), and total protein level ≤ 5.6 g/dl (p = 0.007) were identified as independent risk factors for anastomotic leakage. The investigated nomogram and the adopted risk score failed to reach relevant areas under the ROC curve greater than 0.700 for the prediction of anastomotic leakage.

CONCLUSIONS

The proposed nomogram and the adopted risk score failed to reliably predict the occurrence of anastomotic leakage after rectal resection. Risk scores as prognostic models for the prediction of anastomotic leakage, independently of the study population, still need to be identified.

Preoperative radiotherapy for patients with rectal cancer: a risk factor for non-reversal of ileostomy caused by stenosis or stiffness proximal to colorectal anastomosis

The influence of radiotherapy on permanent stoma and the bowel proximal to anastomosis was not well investigated. The current study aimed to analyze the effect of preoperative radiotherapy on colorectal anastomosis and incidence of non-reversal ileostomy. A total of 184 eligible patients with rectal cancer undergoing loop ileostomy were included. Patients were well selected by excluding some confounding factors and divided into two groups according to whether they received preoperative radiotherapy. Patients with preoperative radiotherapy had higher incidence of non-reversal stoma (12.8%, P = 0.004) and stenosis or stiffness around anastomosis (21.1%, P < 0.01) including 13 patients with stenosis or stiffness proximal to anastomosis. Stenosis proximal to anastomosis was different from anastomotic stricture caused by surgery and could be described by imaging findings. Preoperative radiotherapy prolonged the interval to closure (P = 0.008) and was defined as a significant risk factor for permanent stoma (HR, 0.627; 95% CI, 0.405-0.973; P = 0.04) by multivariate Cox regression analysis. In conclusion, Preoperative radiotherapy increased incidence of non-reversal ileostomy and stenosis or stiffness proximal to anastomosis in rectal cancer patients with radical resection and diverting ileostomy.

Early Closure of a Temporary Ileostomy in Patients With Rectal Cancer: A Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective was to study morbidity and mortality associated with early closure (8-13 days) of a temporary stoma compared with standard procedure (closure after > 12 weeks) after rectal resection for cancer.

BACKGROUND

A temporary ileostomy may reduce the risk of pelvic sepsis after anastomotic dehiscence. However, the temporary ileostomy is afflicted with complications and requires a second surgical procedure (closure) with its own complications. Early closure of the temporary ileostomy could reduce complications for rectal cancer patients.

METHODS

Early closure (8-13 days after stoma creation) of a temporary ileostomy was compared with late closure (>12 weeks) in a multicenter randomized controlled trial, EASY (www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01287637) including patients undergoing rectal resection for cancer. Patients with a temporary ileostomy without signs of postoperative complications were randomized to closure at 8 to 13 days or late closure (>12 weeks after index surgery). Clinical data were collected up to 12 months. Complications were registered according to the Clavien-Dindo Classification of Surgical Complications, and Comprehensive Complication Index was calculated.

RESULTS

The trial included 127 patients in eight Danish and Swedish surgical departments, and 112 patients were available for analysis. The mean number of complications after index surgery up to 12 months follow up was significantly lower in the intervention group (1.2) compared with the control group (2.9), P < 0.0001.

CONCLUSIONS

It is safe to close a temporary ileostomy 8 to 13 days after rectal resection and anastomosis for rectal cancer in selected patients without clinical or radiological signs of anastomotic leakage.

Considerations in Stoma Reversal

Temporary stomas are frequently used in the management of diverticulitis, colorectal cancer, and inflammatory bowel disease. These temporary stomas are used to try to mitigate septic complications from anastomotic leaks and to avoid the need for reoperation. Once acute medical conditions have improved and after the anastomosis has been proven to be healed, stomas can be reversed. Contrast enemas, digital rectal examination, and endoscopic evaluation are used to evaluate the anastomosis prior to reversal. Stoma reversal is associated with complications including anastomotic leak, postoperative ileus, bowel obstruction, enterocutaneous fistula, and, most commonly, surgical site infection. Furthermore, many stomas, which were intended to be temporary, may not be reversed due to postoperative complications, adjuvant therapy, or prohibitive comorbidities.

Is Early Reversal of Defunctioning Ileostomy a Shorter, Easier and Less Expensive Operation?

BACKGROUND

A defunctioning loop ileostomy mitigates the consequences of anastomotic leak from low rectal anastomosis but it is associated with significant morbidity. In this study, the outcome of early reversal of defunctioning ileostomy during the same admission with the primary operation was assessed.

METHODS

This randomized study was carried out at York Teaching Hospital during the period 2003-2007. All patients with defunctioning ileostomy were considered for an early second operation if they had an uneventful recovery and were in good general condition. Patients on steroids, at high cardiorespiratory risk and those experiencing any postoperative complication were excluded. Eligible patients with satisfactory gastrografin enema on postoperative day 6 were randomized to early versus late reversal at 6-8 weeks. Outcome measures were ease of closure as assessed by a visual analog scale by the operating surgeon, all postoperative complications, duration of the operation, total length of hospital stay and associated costs.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine consecutive patients were assessed for eligibility and finally 26 were included in the study. Sixteen patients underwent early reversal. The median(interquartile range (IQR)) age was 62(22) years. Early reversal was significantly superior in terms of ease of abdominal wall closure, ease of reversal (p < 0.01 each), duration of the operation (median(IQR) 20(13) vs. 40(9) min, p < 0.01) and costs of stoma care (median(IQR) 27(9) vs. 311(108) £, p < 0.01). There were no major (grade III/IV) complications in either group. Total length of hospital stay was similar between groups.

CONCLUSION

In carefully selected patients, early reversal of defunctioning ileostomy is feasible, technically easier and has shorter operative time which can also lead to significant cost savings.

Laparoscopic Versus Open Loop Ileostomy Reversal: Is there an Advantage to a Minimally Invasive Approach?

BACKGROUND

Ileostomy reversals are commonly performed procedures after colon and rectal operations. Laparoscopic ileostomy reversal (LIR) with lysis of adhesions has potential benefits over conventional open surgery. The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of laparoscopic and open ileostomy reversal.

METHODS

133 consecutive patients undergoing ileostomy reversal at our institution between June 2009 and August 2013 were analyzed using a retrospective database. The group comprised 53 laparoscopic cases and 80 open cases, performed by four surgeons at a single center. The data were analyzed for patient demographics, operative characteristics, postoperative outcomes, and 30-day morbidity and mortality.

RESULTS

The two groups had comparable mean age, gender distribution, ASA scores, and BMI. The laparoscopic group had a significantly longer duration of surgery compared to the open reversal group (109 versus 93 min, p < 0.05). However, this group underwent more lysis of adhesions (60.4 % versus 26.3 %, p < 0.01) as well as concurrent stoma site mesh reinforcement (32.1 % versus 6.3 %, p < 0.01). In the laparoscopy group, 20.7 % of patients underwent intra-corporeal ileo-ileal anastomosis. There were no significant differences between the laparoscopic and open groups with regard to estimated blood loss (31 versus 40 ml, respectively) or mean length of stay (5.3 vs. 5.7 days, respectively). The rates of overall 30-day morbidity (16.9 % for laparoscopic vs. 21.3 % for open) as well as rates of specific complications were equivalent between groups. 30-day mortalities were not noted in either group.

CONCLUSION

LIR is safe and effective with low perioperative morbidity and mortality. The use of laparoscopy as an option in terms of concomitant hernia repair and lysis of adhesions may be considered in selected patients.

Ileostomy for Non-Traumatic Ileal Perforations: Is this the Beginning of the End?

INTRODUCTION

Ileal perforations are a common place of occurrence in emergency operation rooms around India. They are also significant contributors to mortality in our country. They are very distressing for patients because of the high morbidity of a laparotomy and in certain cases a stoma if its necessity is felt by the operating surgeon. The nature of the disease itself predisposes to a number of complications including wound infections, faecal fistulas and complications associated with a stoma.

AIM

To evaluate the role of ileostomy in patients with non-traumatic ileal perforation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 192 cases of ileal perforation, diagnosed per-operatively, were prospectively studied between June 2012 and July 2014. Cases were treated according to standard resuscitation protocols and underwent repair of the ileal perforation either as primary closure or as a bowel resection and anastomosis with or without a proximal diversion ileostomy. Cases were followed up for a period of six months and immediate and late complications and outcomes were noted.

RESULTS

A total of 192 patients were studied during the given study period out of which 170 (88.5%) were males. The disease was treated primarily without diversion stoma in 176 patients and in 16 patients a proximal diversion ileostomy was performed. The overall mortality was 15 (7.8%) that was noted to be not significantly different in patients with respect to the performance of a stoma. Enterocutaneous fistula was a complication seen exclusively in the non-ileostomy group whereas stomal complications were expectedly noted only in the stoma group.

CONCLUSION

The authors found that though conventional ileostomy diversion may appear a safe option in patients with ileal perforations, it has its own additional morbidity, which at times can be very difficult to manage. An ileostomy is of use in a very small group of patients that is diminishing as better facilities and equipment are obtained to manage this dreaded disease.

CoCStom trial: study protocol for a randomised trial comparing completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy after early versus late diverting stoma closure in low anterior resection for rectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Current evidence supports a diverting stoma in patients undergoing low anterior resection with total mesorectal excision for rectal cancer as it reduces clinical severity of anastomotic leakage. However, relevant stoma morbidity after rectal cancer surgery exists and has a significant impact on quality of life. Moreover, a diverting stoma has an influence on completeness of chemotherapy but it remains unclear in which way. There is no evidence regarding optimal timing for stoma closure in relation to adjuvant chemotherapy. Two randomised controlled trials have studied early stoma closure after low anterior resection in patients with rectal cancer, one of them showing that early closure around day 8 after resection is possible without increasing morbidity.

METHODS/DESIGN

CoCStom is a randomised multicentre trial comparing completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy as primary endpoint after early (8-10 days after resection, before starting adjuvant therapy) versus late (~26 weeks after resection and completion of adjuvant therapy) stoma closure in patients with locally advanced rectal cancer undergoing low anterior resection after neoadjuvant therapy. After exclusion of post-operative anastomotic leakage 257 patients from 30 German hospitals are planned to be included in order to assure a power of 80% for the confirmatory analysis of at least 214 evaluable cases. An absolute increase of 20% for the rate of completely administered adjuvant chemotherapy is regarded as a clinically meaningful step forward and serves as basis for sample size calculation. Quality of life, stoma-related complications, individual completeness of chemotherapy rate, percentage of patients stopping adjuvant therapy or undergoing dose modifications or delay, oncological outcomes, cumulative days of hospitalisation and number of readmissions, rate of symptomatic anastomotic leaks after stoma closure, mortality, post-operative complications and toxicity of adjuvant chemotherapy are secondary endpoints.

DISCUSSION

The CoCStom trial aims to clarify optimal timing of stoma closure in the context of adjuvant chemotherapy. Depending on the results of the trial, patients could benefit either from early or late stoma closure in regard to long term oncological survival due to a higher rate of completeness of adjuvant chemotherapy treatment and thus better effectiveness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00005113. Registered 28 August 2013.

Factors affecting timing of closure and non-reversal of temporary ileostomies

BACKGROUND

Although stoma closure is considered a simple surgical intervention, the interval between construction and reversal is often prolonged, and some ileostomies may never be reversed. We evaluated possible predictors for non-reversal and prolonged interval between construction and reversal.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a cohort study of ileostomy patients treated in a large teaching hospital, we collected data from the surgical complication and enterostomal therapists' registries between January 2001 and December 2011. Parameters responsible for morbidity, mortality, length of stay and time interval between construction and reversal were analysed.

RESULTS

Of 485 intentionally temporary ileostomies, 359 were reversed after a median of 5.6 months (IQR 3.8-8.9 months), while 126 (26%) remained permanent. End ileostomy and intra-abdominal abscess independently delayed reversal. Age, end ileostomy, higher body mass index and preoperative radiotherapy were independent factors for non-reversal. Median duration of hospitalisation for reversal was 7.0 days (5-13 days). Morbidity and mortality were 31 and 0.9%, respectively. In 20 patients (5.5%), re-ileostomy was necessary.

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial number of ileostomies that are intended to be temporary will never be reversed. If reversed, the interval between construction and reversal is longer than anticipated, while morbidity after reversal and duration of hospitalisation are considerable. Besides a temporary ileostomy, there are two other options: no diversion or a permanent colostomy. Shared decision-making is to be preferred in these situations.

Is it safe the reversal of a diverting stoma during adjuvant chemotherapy in elderly rectal cancer patients?

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical outcomes between 2 groups of elderly rectal cancer patients according to the time duration after which their diverting stoma can be reversed.

METHODS

We recruited 124 patients who were ≥65 years old and had undergone diverting stoma after rectal cancer surgery. In Group 1, the reversal of the stoma was predominantly performed after the sixth adjuvant chemotherapy. In Group 2, the reversal was predominantly performed after the third adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

The mean duration for which patients had a stoma was 28.6 ± 9.9 weeks in Group 1 and 17.1 ± 7.4 weeks in Group 2. The interval between stoma formation and stoma formation-related complications was slightly longer in Group 1 than in Group 2 (13.5 ± 9.7 vs. 8.0 ± 4.9 weeks, p = 0.075). There were 16 stoma-related complications in Group 1 (23.2%) and 10 in Group 2 (18.2%) (p = 0.516). There were 6 stoma closure-related complications in Group 1 (8.8%) and 6 in Group 2 (10.9%) (p = 0.766).

DISCUSSION

This study shows that stoma closure during adjuvant chemotherapy is no more harmful than stoma closure after termination of adjuvant chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

It may be possible to limit the duration of diverting stoma following rectal cancer surgery, even if patients are elderly and undergoing adjuvant chemotherapy.

Morbidity and mortality of temporary diverting ileostomies in rectal cancer surgery

INTRODUCTION

A temporary diverting ileostomy is frequently used to reduce the consequences of a distal anastomotic leakage after total mesorectal excision in rectal cancer surgery. This surgical technique is associated with high morbidity and a not negligible mortality. The aim of this study is to evaluate the morbidity and mortality rate associated with an ileostomy and its posterior closure.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Between 2001 and 2012, 96 patients with temporary diverting ileostomy were retrospectively analyzed. Morbidity and mortality were analyzed before and after the stoma closure. The studied variables included age, sex, comorbidities, time to bowel continuity restoration and adjuvant chemotherapy.

RESULTS

In 5 patients the stoma was permanent and another 5 died. The morbidity and mortality rates associated with the stoma while it was present were 21 and 1% respectively. We performed a stoma closure in 86 patients, 57% of whom had previously received adjuvant therapy. There was no postoperative mortality after closure and the morbidity rate was 24%. The average time between initial surgery and restoration of intestinal continuity was 152.2 days. This interval was significantly higher in patients who had received adjuvant therapy. No statistically significant difference was found between the variables analyzed and complications.

CONCLUSIONS

Diverting ileostomy is associated with low mortality and high morbidity rates before and after closure. Adjuvant chemotherapy significantly delays bowel continuity restoration, although in this study did not influence in the rate of complications.

When are defunctioning stomas in rectal cancer surgery really reversed? Results from a population-based single center experience

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study assessed the timing of reversal of defunctioning stoma following low anterior resection of the rectum for cancer and risk factors for a defunctioning stoma becoming permanent in patients who were not reversed.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Patients who underwent low anterior resection with defunctioning stoma during a 12-year period were assessed with regard to timing of stoma reversal. Delayed reversal was defined as >4 months after low anterior resection. Patients with a defunctioning stoma that was never reversed were assessed regarding risk factors for permanent stoma.

RESULTS

A total of 134 patients were analyzed. Of 106 stoma reversals, 19% were reversed within 4 months of low anterior resection, while 81% were reversed later than 4 months. In 58% of these patients, the delay was to due to low medical priority given to this procedure. The other main reasons for delayed stoma reversal were nonsurgical complications (20%), symptomatic anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection (12%), and postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy (10%). Of all patients, 21% (28/134) ended up with a permanent stoma. Risk factors for a defunctioning stoma becoming permanent were stage IV cancer (P < 0.001) and symptomatic anastomotic leakage following low anterior resection (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Four in five patients experienced a delayed stoma reversal, in a majority because of the low priority given to this surgical procedure.

Temporary percutaneous ileostomy versus conventional loop ileostomy in mechanical extraperitoneal colorectal anastomosis: a retrospective study

AIM

Loop ileostomy is a suitable procedure for transitory faecal diversion after low colorectal anastomosis, but it causes relevant morbidities (discomfort, peristomal infections, dehydration) and requires a second operation to be closed. We already described an alternative technique of temporary percutaneous ileostomy (TPI) that can be removed without surgery.

METHOD

The data of 143 consecutive patients, undergoing elective laparoscopic anterior resection of the rectum for adenocarcinoma and low mechanical colorectal anastomosis, 68 with conventional loop ileostomy (CLI) and 75 with TPI, were analyzed.

RESULTS

Neither intra-operative complications nor deaths occurred during the follow-up period. Clinical anastomotic leakage occurred in 4 patients with CLI and in 1 with TPI (p = 0.191). The median time required for the emission of gases and faeces through the stoma was respectively 1 and 2.5 days in the CLI group, and 1 and 2 days in the TPI group (p = 0.259 and p = 0.126). The median post-operative stay was 8 days in the CLI group and 11 days in the TPI group (p < 0.001). PTIs were removed on the median of 9 days after surgery without major complications, whereas the CLIs were re-canalized in 79.4% of patients on an average of 106 days, with 2 major complications.

CONCLUSION

The temporary percutaneous ileostomy seems to be a valid alternative to conventional ileostomy, ensuring optimal faecal diversion and less patient discomfort. It can be easily removed without surgery, allowing patients a better outcome.

Early ileostomy closure: is there a downside?

BACKGROUND

A loop ileostomy is a common adjunct to formation of a low colorectal anastomosis. However, it is not without significant physical and psychological morbidity, and financial cost. Feasibility of early closure during the index admission has previously been reported. This pilot study examines the safety of early closure compared with traditional timing.

METHODS

A retrospective audit of consecutive ileostomy closures performed in a tertiary colorectal unit from January 2008 to January 2010. Demographic data, treatment data and complications were collected by a single investigator from a prospective clinical audit database and hospital records. Patients undergoing early closure (within 10 days of the index operation) were compared with the traditional timing group.

RESULTS

A total of 93 patients underwent closure of loop ileostomy during the study period (44 female; 49 male). Median patient age was 61 years. Nineteen patients (20%) underwent early closure. There were six wound infections in the early closure group (32%), and five in the traditional timing group (7%) (P = 0.01). There was no significant difference in other complications between the two groups. There was a significantly shorter overall hospital stay in the early closure group with a median stay of 14 days (range 10-26), and in the traditional timing group a median stay of 17 days (range 7-80) (P = 0.05). Seven patients (9%) in the traditional timing group had ileostomy-related complications.

CONCLUSION

Early ileostomy closure appears to be associated with an increased wound infection rate but otherwise appears to be a safe alternative to traditional closure in selected patients and may reduce overall hospital stay.

CT antegrade colonography to assess proctectomy and temporary diverting ileostomy complications before early ileostomy takedown in patients with low rectal endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to describe an imaging method based on a CT technique, CT antegrade colonography, for the evaluation of low anastomosis and to evaluate the value of CT antegrade colonography before early ileostomy closure after proctectomy in low rectal endometriosis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred ninety-five patients referred for low rectal endometriosis underwent proctectomy and were eligible for early ileostomy closure. All patients underwent standard antegrade fluoroscopy (n=77) or CT antegrade colonography (n=118) 8 days after surgery. The negative predictive values, positive predictive values, sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio of standard antegrade fluoroscopy and CT antegrade colonography in detecting anastomotic leakage and abscesses were assessed. The reference standard for positive and negative examinations was based on clinical follow-up, imaging, surgical, or interventional procedure findings.

RESULTS

Negative and positive predictive values for detecting anastomotic leakage were 100% (95% CI, 96.8-100%) and 100% (95% CI, 39.8-100%), respectively, for CT antegrade colonography and 98.6% (95% CI, 92.4-100%) and 100% (95% CI, 54.1-100%), respectively, for standard antegrade fluoroscopy. The negative and positive predictive values for detecting abscess were 100% (95% CI, 96.8-100%) and 100% (95% CI, 47.8-100%), respectively, for CT antegrade colonography and 97.3% (95% CI, 90.8-99.7%) and 100% (95% CI, 2.5-100%), respectively, for standard antegrade fluoroscopy.

CONCLUSION

CT antegrade colonography may play a major role in the evaluation of low anastomosis protected by an ileostomy after proctectomy in low rectal endometriosis, leading to the development of a new strategy with early restoration of the intestinal continuity.

The Reversal of a Protective Stoma Is Feasible Before the Complete Healing of a Colorectal Anastomotic Leak

A proximal diverting stoma is recommended in “high-risk” conditions after total mesorectal excision. The aim of the study is to assess whether, after checking the anastomosis by using a water-soluble contrast enema (WCE), the closure of the ileostomy is feasible and safe, even in the presence of a persistent radiological leak. From 2003 to 2010, 210 colorectal anastomoses were performed. Ileostomy was carried out in “high-risk” anastomosis. A radiological control was performed 2 weeks later. If a leakage was present, conservative therapy controlled by serial WCEs was prescribed. Ileostomy closure was performed in the absence of leakage or with persistent leakage without clinical signs of pelvic infections. Seventy patients (33.3%) had a protective ileostomy. Fifty-eight of these (82.9%) had an uneventful course, whereas 12 (17.1%) had clinical leakage. All 70 patients were submitted to WCE after 2 weeks. Nine of 58 patients (15.5%) and eight of 12 patients with clinical anastomotic leakage showed a leakage at radiology. All these patients were scheduled another WCE 2 months later. It showed that the anastomosis had been healed in seven patients, whereas the 10 patients with leaks remained with ostomy until the third enema 1 month later. For all these patients, closure of the ileostomy was planned despite persistent radiological and subclinical leakage. A radiological study using WCE before closure of the stoma is essential and stoma closure, in the presence of a persistent leakage, is possible in selected patients.

Factors affecting closure of a temporary stoma

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to examine time to reversal of a temporary ostomy, reasons for delayed closure, and patient satisfaction with the scheduling of their closure and related hospital care.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, descriptive study.

SUBJECTS AND SETTING

The target population comprised patients who underwent creation of a temporary ostomy and reversal surgery within one National Health System Hospital Trust in the United Kingdom. The population served by this Trust are ethnically and socioeconomically diverse, predominantly living in urban areas around Greater London. Sixty-one persons who met inclusion criteria were identified.

METHODS

A two-step analytical process was undertaken. First, a literature review examining incidence and causes of delayed stoma closure was undertaken. Second, a postal survey of all patients who had had their stoma closed in 2009 was conducted. Respondents were allowed 2 weeks to complete and return the questionnaire.

INSTRUMENT

The survey instrument was developed locally and subjected to content validation using ostomy patients, surgical and nursing colleagues. It consisted of 9 questions querying time from original surgery to closure, reasons for delaying closure surgery beyond 12 weeks, and satisfaction with care.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven patients returned their questionnaires, indicating they consented to participate; a response rate of 44%. Half of the respondents (n = 14 [52%]) underwent closure surgery within 6 months of stoma formation; the remaining 48% waited more than 6 months (median: 6.5 months, range: 1.5-26 months). Thirteen patients (48%) reported a delay in receiving their stoma closure; the main reason cited was the need for a course of adjuvant postoperative chemotherapy. Three quarters of respondents (22 [74%]) were satisfied with the overall care they received.

CONCLUSION

Findings from this study suggest that stoma closure may be associated with fewest complications if performed before 12 weeks.

Early closure of temporary ileostomy--the EASY trial: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to evaluate efficiency based on data on morbidity and mortality, health-related quality of life and healthcare-related costs after early reversal of temporary ileostomy after rectal resection for cancer compared with the standard procedure (late reversal).

BACKGROUND

Reversal of a temporary ileostomy is generally associated with a low morbidity and mortality. However, ostomy reversal may cause complications requiring reoperation with subsequent major complications, in ranges from 0% to 7-9% and minor complications varying from 4-5% to 30%. Based on studies exploring and describing the time of closure in previous studies which are mostly of low quality, a recent review concluded that closing a temporary stoma within 2 weeks did not seem to be associated with an increase in morbidity and mortality.

DESIGN AND METHODS

Early closure of temporary ileostomy (EASY), a randomised controlled trial, is a prospective randomised controlled multicentre study which is performed within the framework of the Scandinavian Surgical Outcomes Research Group (http://www.ssorg.net/) and plans to include 200 patients from Danish and Swedish hospitals. The primary end-point of the study is the frequency of complications 0-12 months after surgery (the stoma creation operation). The secondary end-points of the study are (1) comparison of the total costs of the two groups at 6 and 12 months after surgery (stoma creation); (2) comparison of health-related quality of life in the two groups evaluated with the 36-item short-form and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-CR29/CR30 at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery (stoma creation); and (3) comparison of disease-specific quality of life in the two groups at 3, 6 and 12 months after surgery (stoma creation).

DISCUSSION

The aim of the EASY trial is to evaluate the efficiency of early reversal of temporary ileostomy after surgery for rectal cancer versus late reversal. The EASY trial is expected to have a huge impact on patient safety as well as an improvement in patient-reported outcome. Clinical trials identifier NCT01287637.

[Stoma creation during low anterior resection: the cons]

Creation of a protective stoma is nowadays considered the standard of care in patients undergoing low rectal resection to protect these patients from the potentially hazardous consequences of an anastomotic leak. This appears reasonable in patients with acknowledged risk factors such as male gender, low anastomosis, preoperative radiochemotherapy, intraoperative complications, or steroid treatment to ensure patients' safety. However, from our view, it is debatable, if patients without these risk factors can undergo low rectal resection without a stoma. This approach can prevent patients form potential risks of stoma creation as well as closure and the associated readmission to the hospital. Based on reliable patient selection, avoiding a protective stoma during low rectal resection can increase patients' satisfaction and decrease primary and secondary medical costs. However, this approach is hampered by the lack of evidence for patient selection, leading to legal concerns that justify this approach only in highly motivated patients after detailed counseling of the individual patient.

Morbidity and complications of protective loop ileostomy

OBJECTIVE

The creation of a loop ileostomy is considered suitable to protect a distal anastomosis in colorectal surgery. This technique is, however, associated with failure, complications and even mortality. The aim of this study was to quantify retrospectively the morbidity associated with an ileostomy and its subsequent closure.

METHOD

One hundred and nineteen patients with a temporary loop ileostomy, created between January 2000 and July 2007 were retrospectively analysed from a review of patient records.

RESULTS

All ileostomies were closed after a median period of 106 days (interquartile range: 69-174 days). Stoma-related morbidity occurred in 23 (19%) patients. After ileostomy closure, 16 major complications were seen in 14 (12%) patients and 43 minor complications occurred in 25 (21%) patients. Sixty-three patients (53%) had neither stoma-related morbidity or peri- or postoperative complications after stoma closure.

CONCLUSION

Protective loop ileostomy was found to be associated with a high morbidity. This raises the question of the mode of identifying the specific patients with a low anastomosis who should be provided an ileostomy for protection, set against the potential complications of the formation and closure of the ileostomy.

The morbidity surrounding reversal of defunctioning ileostomies: a systematic review of 48 studies including 6,107 cases

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Loop ileostomies are used currently in surgical practice to reduce the consequences of distal anastomotic failure following colorectal resection. It is often assumed that reversal of a loop ileostomy is a simple and safe procedure. However, many studies have demonstrated high morbidity rates following loop ileostomy closure. The aims of this systematic review were to examine all the existing evidence in the literature on morbidity and mortality following closure of loop ileostomy.

METHOD

A literature search of Ovid, Embase, the Cochrane database, Google Scholar and Medline using Pubmed as the search engine was used to identify studies reporting on the morbidity of loop ileostomy closure (latest at June 15th 2008), was performed. Outcomes of interest included demographics, the details regarding the original indication for operation, operative and hospital-related outcomes, post-operative bowel-related complications, and other surgical and medical complications.

RESULTS

Forty-eight studies from 18 countries satisfied the inclusion criteria. Outcomes of a total of 6,107 patients were analysed. Overall morbidity following closure of loop ileostomy was found to be 17.3% with a mortality rate of 0.4%. 3.7% of patients required a laparotomy at the time of ileostomy closure. The most common post-operative complications included small bowel obstruction (7.2%) and wound sepsis (5.0%).

CONCLUSION

The consequences of anastomotic leakage following colorectal resection are severe. However, the consequences of stoma reversal are often underestimated. Surgeons should adopt a selective strategy regarding the use of defunctioning ileostomy, and counsel patients further prior to the original surgery. In this way, patients at low risk may be spared the morbidity of stoma reversal.

Morbidity related to the use of a protective stoma in anterior resection for rectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate morbidity related to the use of a protective stoma in rectal resection for cancer.

METHOD

Seventy-two patients undergoing anterior rectal resection for cancer combined with a protective stoma (1993-2005) were included. Loop ileostomy was applied in 61 patients, loop colostomy in 10, and end ileostomy in one. Data regarding the primary operation were recorded prospectively, and stoma complications retrospectively.

RESULTS

Five patients (7%) developed stoma complications immediately after the primary operation, and 14/70 (20%) following hospital discharge. The stoma was closed in 62 (86%) patients after median 4 (range 1-11) months. Five patients (8%) developed complications in hospital after closure. Two patients (3%) died, one of ileal anastomotic leak and one of myocardial infarction. Five patients (8%) had late complications after closure. A total of 19 patients (26%) developed stoma related complications. Eight (11%) of these were reoperated. Premature stoma closure was necessary in two additional patients. Nine patients (13%) ended up with a permanent stoma. Fourteen (19%) patients developed signs of rectal anastomotic failure, six (8%) of whom needed reoperation. One died.

CONCLUSION

Significant morbidity is related to the use of defunctioning stomas. A protective stoma cannot always prevent serious complications of a rectal anastomotic leak, and a proportion of the patients will not have the stoma closed.

The outcome of loop ileostomy closure: a prospective study

BACKGROUND

The use of a loop ileostomy is an effective method to protect pelvic anastomoses, although there is some debate as to the routine use of a stoma. A second operation is required to close the stoma, with potential complications.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess prospectively the morbidity of closure of loop ileostomy.

METHOD

All patients scheduled for loop ileostomy closure over a 12-month period were included. The patient demographics, operative technique, complications and length of stay were recorded prospectively.

RESULTS

Fifty consecutive patients (28 males and 22 females) with a median age (interquartile range, IQR) of 56 (42-73) years underwent closure of loop ileostomy, at a median time (IQR) of 29 (18-48) weeks after formation. Twelve patients (24%) developed complications: six (12%) had intestinal obstruction of which one required a laparotomy, four (8%) had wound infections of which one required re-operation, one (2%) had an ileal anastomotic leak and subsequently died and one (2%) died from a myocardial infarction. The median length (IQR) of hospital stay was 8 (7-10) days.

CONCLUSION

We have demonstrated that a quarter of patients develop complications after loop ileostomy closure. The majority of these are minor. Methods to reduce the number of complications, such as optimum time for closure and distal limb irrigation techniques, need to be studied.

Randomized clinical trial of early versus delayed temporary stoma closure after proctectomy

BACKGROUND

Temporary faecal diversion is recommended with a low colorectal, coloanal or ileoanal anastomosis (LA). This randomized study evaluated early (EC; 8 days) versus late (LC; 2 months) closure of the temporary stoma.

METHODS

Patients undergoing rectal resection with LA were eligible to participate. If there was no radiological sign of anastomotic leakage after 7 days, patients were randomized to EC or LC. The primary endpoints were postoperative morbidity and mortality 90 days after the initial resection.

RESULTS

Some 186 patients were analysed. There were no deaths within 90 days and overall morbidity rates were similar in the EC and LC groups (31 versus 38 per cent respectively; P = 0.254). Overall surgical complication (both 15 per cent; P = 1.000) and reoperation (both 8 per cent; P = 1.000) rates were similar, but wound complications were more frequent after EC (19 versus 5 per cent; P = 0.007). Small bowel obstruction (3 versus 16 per cent; P = 0.002) and medical complications (5 versus 15 per cent; P = 0.021) were more common with LC. Median (range) hospital stay was reduced by EC (16 (6-59) versus 18 (9-262) days; P = 0.013).

CONCLUSION

Early stoma closure is feasible in selected patients, with reduced hospital stay, bowel obstruction and medical complications, but a higher wound complication rate.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT00428636 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).